Orwell On Socialism's Opportunity

Along with far too many other books, I keep at my bedside George Orwell's Why I Write, published by Penguin Books in its Great Ideas series. What follows is something I read to my wife the other night. (I am such a romantic; she yawned.) Please permit me to occasionally add things in [ ], and to use boldface when I think it necessary for emphasis.

From Page 71, George Orwell's Why I Write:

The fact that we are are at war [and in economic disarray] has turned Socialism from a text-book word into a realizable policy.

The inefficiency of private capitalism has been proved all over Europe [and apparently the United States]. Its injustice has been proved in the East End of London. Patriotism, against which the Socialists fought so long, has become a tremendous lever in their hands. People who at any other time would cling like glue to their miserable scraps of privilege, will surrender them fast enough when their country [or their retirement plan] is in danger. War [and economic anxiety] is the greatest of all agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions, brings realities to the surface. Above all, war [and economic disarray] brings it home to the individual. That he is not altogether an individual [you must share; sacrifice]. It is only because they are aware of this that men will die on the field of battle. At this moment it is not so much a question of surrendering leisure, comfort, economic liberty, social prestige. There are very few people in England [or America] who really want to see their country conquered by Germany [or Wall Street, or jihadists]. If it can be made clear that defeating Hitler [and income disparity] means wiping out class privilege, the great mass of middling people, the £6 a week to £2000 a year class, will probably be on our side. These people are quite indispensable, because they include most of the technical experts. Obviously the snobbishness and political ignorance of people like airmen and naval officers will be a very great difficulty. But without those airmen, destroyer commanders, etc. etc. we could not survive for a week. The only approach to them is through their patriotism. An intelligent Socialist movement will use their patriotism, instead of merely insulting it, as hitherto. [It is interesting to read news reports of Michelle Obama's frequent and recent meetings with military families in swing states.]

But do I mean there will be no opposition? Of course not. It would be childish to expect anything of the kind.

There will be a bitter political struggle, and there will be unconscious and half-conscious sabotage everywhere. At some point or other it may be necessary to use violence [like Weathermen bombs]. It is easy to imagine a pro-Fascist rebellion breaking out in, for instance, India. We shall have to fight against bribery, ignorance and snobbery. The bankers and the larger businessmen, the landowners and dividend-drawers, the officials with their prehensile bottoms, will obstruct for all they are worth [or maybe they will even help]. Even the middle class will writhe when their accustomed way of life is menaced. But just because the English sense of national unity has never disintegrated, because patriotism is finally stronger than class-hatred, the chances are that the will of the majority will prevail. It is no use imagining that one can make fundamental changes without causing a split in the nation; but the treacherous minority will be far smaller in time of war [and economic crisis] than it would be at any other time.

The swing of opinion is visibly happening, but it cannot be counted on to happen fast enough of its own accord. This war is a race between the consolidation of Hitler's empire and the growth of democratic consciousness. Everywhere in England you can see a ding-dong battle ranging to and fro -- in Parliament and in the Government, in the factories and the armed forces, in the pubs and the air-raid shelters, in the newspapers and on the radio. Every day there are tiny defeats, tiny victories. ... It is a struggle between the groping and the unteachable, between the young and the old, between the living and the dead. But it is very necessary that the discontent which undoubtedly exists should take a purposeful and not merely obstructive form. It is time for the people to define their war [and economic] aims. What is wanted is a simple, concrete programme of action, which can be given all possible publicity, and round which public opinon can group itself.

I suggest the following six-point programme is the kind of thing we need. The first three points deal with England's internal policy, the other three with the Empire and the world:

1. Nationalization of land, mines, railways, banks and major industries.
   
2. Limitation of incomes, on such a scale that the highest tax-free income in Britain does not exceed the lowest by more than ten to one.
   
3. Reform of the educational system along democratic [read 'radical egalitarian'] lines.
   
4. Immediate Dominion status for India [Iraq?], with power to secede when the war is over.
   
5. Formation of an Imperial General Council, in which the coloured [sic] peoples are to be represented.
   
6. Declaration of formal alliance with China, Abyssinia and all other victims of the Fascist powers.
   

The general tendency of this programme is unmistakable. It aims quite frankly at turning this war into a revolutionary war and England into a Socialist democracy.

[end of Orwell quote]

______________

Interesting: "...turning this war into a revolutionary war..." in order to produce a socialist state. Sounds eerily familiar.

Time to "cling."

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

A TARP Over Our Many Woes

I don't see how one can miss the irony of the acronym. The "Troubled Asset Relief Program," or TARP, has been woven by lawmakers and tossed over what might be the corpse found at a horrific accident scene. Usually what follows is an investigation: a forensic examination of all details, an Accident Reconstruction Team running data, taking measurements, taking pictures. And a plastic tape -- in this case probably red tape -- keeping the public at a distance. Which is even more ironic, since the public's trust, and even its treasury, are what lie beneath the tarp.

I have no problem admitting my own culpability. I agree with George Will that suddenly and without warrant, Main Street America has been knighted as some sort of model of fiscal valor and discretion, while Wall Street has been stripped down to nothing but its new clothes of naked avarice. I accept that Main Street -- which is also heavily invested in Wall Street -- is every bit as reckless with personal credit, and as avaricious as the paragons of capitalism.

But the fact remains that, despite John McCain's utterly unhelpful "this is not the time to fix blame, it's time to fix the problem," there is blame to be fixed -- at least in Washington. And from what I am seeing, most of the evidence points directly at the Democratic Party. I don't see how one can conclude otherwise: the Democrats appeared desperate to pass a plan. And though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid averred that no one knew what to do, the Democratic Party's candidate for president, Barack Obama, who clearly did not know what to do, insisted that there was "no choice" but to pass the massive corporate bailout. Apparently, at least to Sen. Obama, some things are not a matter of choice but of inevitability: without anyone proving that the future would be dire, Congress HAD to act -- now.

To me, it all smacks of Democrats looking for America to bail them out, to give them more time to gain more control of all things Washington, solely so they can control the horrors of their own mismanagement, and maybe even their own prosecutions. I sense Democrats desperately seeking to control the scene of their own accident, hoping that they can send in their own investigators. And if there were obvious Republicans to blame, there would not have been a second's pause in Democratic Party denunciations of the GOP's "culture of corruption." In a critical election year, we know Democrats would have exploited Republican culpability to the absolute maximum; that they have not, proves to me they have much to hide.

That President Bush and many Republicans pushed for this bailout can only mean one of two things: either they see that Democrats have in fact screwed things up so badly that there is no time to waste afixing blame right now, and a tourniquet is needed immediately, or that both parties are to blame and the Republicans must join Democrats to stave off a possible coup or revolution. But the latter seems implausible to me, particularly since the Democrats have been legislating for the last two years.

I must, however, return to my grave feelings of suspicion. There is something grotesque afoot; when I look at those who have contributed tens of millions of dollars to Barack Obama's campaign, I see the names of those who stand to benefit the most, not only from the bailout, but from a troubled economy. When I think of Democrats rolling out Warren Buffett as some sort of moral index of economic and market excellence, I sense that there is a profoundly blind eye to the opportunistic advantage given such a wealthy Democrat like Mr. Buffett: as of two days ago, he had made in excess (at least on paper) of $650,000,000 in "helping out" Wall Street (and this from a man who complains that the Republican tax codes favor the rich and prevent him from paying more taxes).

What is the one thing Democrats need, usually, to win the White House? That's right, they need discontent, resentment: they need envy to be maximized. How best to do that? Foment concern about injustice, about economic disparity, about unfair tax rates, about who has X and who doesn't. Every election cycle I have ever seen in which Democrats vie for the White House, a house wherein some Republican beast has been ruining the very foundations of the world, Democrats root against the economy at every turn. Somewhere the Democrats have been able to create and preserve the ridiculous myth that they know how to stimulate and manage economies better than anyone else. Hence, they need, like an addict needs a fix, for economic news to be grim. So they work to undermine it, or so I believe.

What better way to prove the greed of Wall Street, a large Democratic stronghold if there ever was one and yet somehow cast as Republican, than to help create a crisis by mismanagement? What better way to create chaos than to hold a gun to Washington's head, saying, "You have no choice," all the while knowing that your own wealth is not at risk. What better way to create chaos than to have great Democratic billionaires, like Mr. Buffett or George Soros, assist in sell-offs and cheap buyouts and sundry other manipulations of markets and moods? What better way to produce fear -- fueled by envy's promiscuous whispers -- than to tell Main Street that Wall Street has sold it off, even if Wall Street, by nearly 2 to 1, has backed the candidate of the very party in control of the House and Senate, and whose candidate for president is almost drowning in incredibly liquid assets? How else to generate anxiety about free markets than to actually prove that markets are not one whit free; that they are susceptible to the actions of just a handful of billionaires (and who cares if those billionaires are Democrats)?

When a friend of mine, a major-league banker in a Wall Street bank, tells me that he and his bank believe Barack Obama is better for them, I know something is up, and what is up has nothing to do with making the wealthy less wealthy or the poor less poor.

I sense, now, of course, that Democrats will immediately turn this into a Bush failure. They will denounce his tax cuts as "reckless and irresponsible"; they will couple that indictment to a declaration that America can no longer afford the War on Terror, at least in Iraq; they will call for reduction in that theater, that "reckless and misguided rush-to-war theater" of great disgrace.

Republicans, of course, have leverage points, too. But the seemingly pusillanimous John McCain seems so preoccupied with appearing like the incarnation of the bipartisan spirit that he seems unable or unwilling to seize the great campaign opportunity smacking him in the nose. One look at the economic trends since the Democrats won in 2006 might win Sen. McCain a few more votes; but a more revelatory examination of Democratic-backed policies that led to certain "inevitabilities" would certainly lead to a Republican victory.

I will not be the one to say that what lies under the TARP is stinking. But I will not be surprised to learn that the thing that does cast off a great stench is the TARP itself.

Just some hasty thoughts.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

You Know, It's A Very Curious World

As a follow-up to the video to which I linked on Saturday (and again this morning) in which part of the blame for the current economic crisis is placed on the CRA, or Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter, I offer you this rebuttal from Business Week. But this is a curious world, perhaps even an Orwellian world. For over at Wikipedia, something a lot like a 1984 debate has broken out over the CRA; claims of revising history are being hurled about.

As you know, Wikipedia entries are generally created in a cooperative, peer-reviewed fashion. Wikipedia (perhaps even the whole of the World Wide Web) at times feels a bit like Orwell's Ministry of Truth, where real truths are tossed into the fires of forgetfulness. Just one look at the Wiki debate or "talk" page on the CRA entry (the entry is now under dispute) and a person could begin to worry that perhaps the truly historical and historically true are no longer secure. Some Wiki contributors even assert, rather casually, that sources submitted to the debate are subject to vandalism. Oiks!

Please note that the conversation is rather hard to follow. But there are some interesting observations and contentions offered.

Here's something from the Business Week article to which I linked at the top of this post:

University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject [sic] comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

But on the Wiki talk page I found this simple but rather astute observation submitted in an unsigned contribution:

But what Michael Barr says is:

"More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision"

it doesn't say they weren't subject to the CRA.

Indeed, it seems someone has at least got one thing right.

Peace.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

A Résumé Of Now

During Thanksgiving weekend last year I enjoyed dinner with some of my favorite people on this planet. It was a great time of silliness and laughter, fine wine and soft light, delicious food and spirited conversation. And politics.

I don't mean to suggest that there were any feverish moments of partisan bickering, of allegiances and loyalties busting at the seams; of bellies belching flak. There really was nothing of the sort. After all, it was November 2007; the roster of political candidates for any party had not yet been filled.

I recall this now because of something I said that night. But first, I must offer something of a confession. Those of my readers who have paid close attention, even any attention, to what I've written here should know by now that I am not a fan of John McCain's. In fact, I have not penned a single sentence in favor of his candidacy at this or any other website. None. And I make this bold assertion in the face of the clearly delusional visitors who come here to accuse me of being some sort of paid hack for the McCain campaign. Sadly such folks confuse my criticisms of Barack Obama as proof of my allegiance to all things Republican; such confusion also leads some interlocutors to conclude that my defense of John McCain or Sarah Palin from blatantly false or mean attacks is tantamount to my endorsing the Republican Party throughout eternity. But back to my story.

In November 2007, while dining in a fine establishment with the loveliest people, most of whom align themselves quite strongly with the Democratic Party, I was asked by one of my dinner companions what I thought of the upcoming election season (the one that is now upon us). I recall quite clearly stating that I was not a big fan of any one candidate, but that I thought the Republicans would nominate John McCain. I remember also mentioning that I believed Mitt Romney would be a very attractive candidate, at least superficially; and that Rudy Guiliani had a great chance, though his pro-choice stance on abortion might limit him. But my reason for discussing John McCain was simple: John McCain had not been perpetually running for president. In fact, or so I offered, he was known to be a hard worker in the Senate, often if not always present. I also noted that he had been working in Washington far longer into the year than many other senators who were seeking the presidency. That McCain began his on-the-road campaign later than most, if not all, of his colleagues, I thought was rather telling.

Finally, I added that McCain was clearly his own man, for no other senator of note from either party had been known to so often stand against the party to which he (or she) belonged. It was for these reasons I believed John McCain would win the nomination; and, at the time, I felt he would be the Republicans' best chance for appealing to independents and conservative Democrats, as I believed then that the Democratic Party presidential nominee -- without question -- would be Hillary Clinton.

Several of my companions agreed that McCain was, at best, the most tolerable Republican known then to be striving for the White House.

I share all this because of yesterday's startling events. John McCain decided to suspend his campaign for the White House because he felt the need to fulfill his duty -- he IS employed as a US Senator -- and return to Washington to help in this time of "economic crisis." In short, John McCain decided to be a senator and not a candidate, at least until the crisis is averted (at least on paper).

Now I know that Democrats instantly turned on Mr. McCain for returning to the capitol: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, reduced Mr. McCain's decision to a mere ploy, a mere photo-op. And it very well may be. But it strikes me that Mr. McCain's decision is at least consistent with the sort of senator John McCain has always shown himself to be: diligent and dedicated. And present.

Wednesday, like millions of others in America, I received an email from Barack Obama. Here is that email's first sentence:

The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.

I have little educated reason to doubt that Mr. Obama is correct, that we are witnessing something as dire as the Great Depression. But I ask: If something so dire is about to befall this country, is spending nearly half a billion dollars on a presidential campaign the most important thing to be doing right now? Shouldn't that money -- and all campaign money -- be held for something "more important"? Moreover, if today is the very threshold of the next Great Depression, what is Barack Obama going to do about the imminent crisis -- not in the future, for the future is perhaps too late -- but RIGHT NOW?

Please, I beg you. I am not saying John McCain has done the right thing here; I am merely suggesting that he has done the better thing. The problem with the Obama candidacy is highlighted in this very moment: Barack Obama's résumé is a résumé of the future. His candidacy is all promise: Elect me and I will do _______. But what we need from him is something more than promises: we need some proof not only that he can deliver, but that he even knows how to deliver, that he knows the basic steps. To what can the Obama campaign point that proves Mr. Obama has delivered? Where is his expertise? What proof does the campaign have that Mr. Obama can work across party lines and get REAL things done, like the real thing before us? Everyone concedes that John McCain has proven himself over and over again, especially across party lines. Where are the people who say the same of Barack Obama (besides his adoring fans)?

This exact moment, or so it seems to this writer, is the last great chance Barack Obama has to prove he is a man who DOES things, and not just a man who thinks and talks about doing things, before the election.

Today I stop and think about what happened yesterday. Did I really see a "maverick" rush back to Washington for a photo-op, or did I see him go back to Washington because sometimes there are more important things than even the White House? Surely Barack Obama's OWN WORDS prove that he believes we are on the very brink of catastrophe, and yet his actions prove that an imminent financial collapse is less dire than a White House without him.

John McCain, on the other hand, has at least attempted to do something today; he is not boasting about his wild successes in some vague and unknown future. That, I am reluctant to say, is one admirable and commendable quality in a leader. But I'll let you do the endorsing.

Peace.

BG